Abstract：Objective To evaluate the cortical bone material distribution of the humeral head region in different-age groups.Methods Fifty one healthy volunteers who underwent computed tomography scanning on shoulder were included in this study, and were divided into 3 groups according to the age: group A (17 individuals, 20-39 years old), group B (18 individuals, 40-59 years old) and group C (16 individuals, ≥60 years old). Image analysis was performed on CT imaging data of these volunteers from Stradwin 5.2 software, a novel technique called cortical bone mapping, and the thickness maps for each proximal humerus were generated. Then three cross-sections (1, 2, 3 section) parallel to each other were established in the humeral head region. In the 1-3 sections, the cortical thickness (CTh), cortical mass surface density (CMSD), and endocortical trabecular bone mineral density (ECTD) in the anterior, lateral and posterior wall of the humeral head area were measured and analyzed.Results With regard to CTh and CMSD, there were significant differences among the anterior, lateral and posterior wall in the 3 cross-sections of group A (all P values<0.01), while no difference was found in group B and C (all P values>0.05). The CTh and CMSD of the posterior wall were the lowest in the cross-sections 1-2 among the 3 groups, and both parameters of the lateral wall were lowest in the cross-section 3 in the group C. There was no difference in ECTD data among different cortical locations in the three groups(all P values>0.05).Conclusions There was significant regional variation of cortical bone material distribution in proximal humerus, and the degree of the regional variation decreased after the age of 40. Cortical bone material in posterior or lateral wall is structurally vulnerable.
王烨明, 李健, 刘俊阳, 田旭, 杨建华, 东靖明. 不同年龄段健康国人肱骨头区域骨皮质区域性分布差异分析[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2018, 23(2): 94-98.
Wang Yeming, Li jian, Liu Junyang, Tiang Xu, Yang Jianhua, Dong Jingming. Age-related changes in cortical bone material distribution in the humeral head region in healthy Chinese people using computed tomography. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2018, 23(2): 94-98.
Maravic M, Briot K, Roux C, et al. Burden of proximal humerus fractures in the French National Hospital Database[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2014, 100(8): 931-934. DOI:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.09.017
[2]
Somasundaram K, Huber CP, Babu V, et al. Proximal humeral fractures: the role of calcium sulphate augmentation and extended deltoid splitting approach in internal fixation using locking plates[J]. Injury, 2013, 44(4): 481-487. DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2012.10.030
[3]
Chang CY, Tang CH, Chen KC, et al. The mortality and direct medical costs of osteoporotic fractures among postmenopausal women in Taiwan[J]. Osteoporos Int, 2016, 27(2): 665-676. DOI:10.1007/s00198-015-3238-3
[4]
Mantila Roosa SM, Hurd AL, Xu H, et al. Age-related changes in proximal humerus bone health in healthy, white males[J]. Osteoporos Int, 2012, 23(12): 2775-2783. DOI:10.1007/s00198-012-1893-1
[5]
Sprecher CM, Schmidutz F, Helfen T, et al. Histomorphometric assessment of cancellous and cortical bone material distribution in the proximal humerus of normal and osteoporotic individuals: significantly reduced bone stock in the metaphyseal and subcapital regions of osteoporotic individuals[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2015, 94(51): e2043. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000002043
[6]
Vilayphiou N, Boutroy S, Sornay-Rendu E, et al. Age-related changes in bone strength from HR-pQCT derived microarchitectural parameters with an emphasis on the role of cortical porosity[J]. Bone, 2016, 83: 233-240. DOI:10.1016/j.bone.2015.10.012
[7]
Augat P, Schorlemmer S. The role of cortical bone and its microstructure in bone strength[J]. Age Ageing, 2006, 35(Suppl 2): ii27-ii31. DOI:10.1093/ageing/afl081
[8]
Treece GM, Gee AH, Mayhew PM, et al. High resolution cortical bone thickness measurement from clinical CT data[J]. Med Image Anal, 2010, 14(3): 276-290. DOI:10.1016/j.media.2010.01.003
[9]
Treece GM, Poole KES, Gee AH. Imaging the femoral cortex: thickness, density and mass from clinical CT[J]. Med Image Anal, 2012, 16(5): 952-965. DOI:10.1016/j.media.2012.02.008
[10]
Treece GM, Gee AH, Tonkin C, et al. Predicting hip fracture type with cortical bone mapping (CBM) in the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study[J]. J Bone Miner Res, 2015, 30(11): 2067-2077. DOI:10.1002/jbmr.2552
[11]
Homminga J, Van-Rietbergen B, Lochmüller EM, et al. The osteoporotic vertebral structure is well adapted to the loads of daily life, but not to infrequent “error” loads[J]. Bone, 2004, 34(3): 510-516. DOI:10.1016/j.bone.2003.12.001
[12]
Lotz JC, Cheal EJ, Hayes WC. Stress distributions within the proximal femur during gait and falls: implications for osteoporotic fracture[J]. Osteoporos Int, 1995, 5(4): 252-261. DOI:10.1007/bf01774015
[13]
Chiba K, Burghardt AJ, Osaki M, et al. Heterogeneity of bone microstructure in the femoral head in patients with osteoporosis: an ex vivo HR-pQCT study[J]. Bone, 2013, 56(1): 139-146. DOI:10.1016/j.bone.2013.05.019
[14]
Chen H, Kubo KY. Bone three-dimensional microstructural features of the common osteoporotic fracture sites[J]. World J Orthop, 2014, 5(4): 486-495. DOI:10.5312/wjo.v5.i4.486
[15]
Barvencik F, Gebauer M, Beil FT, et al. Age- and sex-related changes of humeral head microarchitecture: histomorphometric analysis of 60 human specimens[J]. J Orthop Res, 2010, 28(1): 18-26. DOI:10.1002/jor.20957
[16]
Lim Fat D, Kennedy J, Galvin R, et al. The Hounsfield value for cortical bone geometry in the proximal humerus—an in vitro study[J]. Skeletal Radiol, 2012, 41(5): 557-568. DOI:10.1007/s00256-011-1255-7
2018, Vol. 23 
